SLCW on Nostr: Well, now you're talking about two different things; scientific discovery, and ...
Well, now you're talking about two different things; scientific discovery, and research-driven consensus. You can't conflate the two and pretend they're one and the same. Scientific discovery can come from many places, research being just one of them. Scientific discovery is irrelevant in this situation as there are no discoveries at the heart of the matter. This is a judicial opinion relating to consensus of established scientific knowledge. It's not a ruling that some new discovery makes the existing body of knowledge irrelevant. That notion itself is absurd. Regardless of this judge's opinion, the established scientific consensus will remain the same until some new research that contradicts the consensus goes through the scientific process, including peer review, and is so compelling as to make what was previously believed moot. There are no shortcuts to this process, nor should there be. The scientific process is purposely rigorous, and that's why it's such an amazing tool for discerning truth. It's certainly not going to be undone by some layperson in a robe rendering a legal opinion. That's just not how it works.
Published at
2024-09-26 06:04:25Event JSON
{
"id": "4ad48dff7536a0d7062e57ad6d461b83fd3cc4797f12e35b15436156e899ee71",
"pubkey": "65912a7ad17fd5cf3bacce9759f3bea3a44f9a3397340e559cf067945dc638bf",
"created_at": 1727330665,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"7aa6cbd0d9a0329aff635c872876a29110449636bd74954f692eef319382a70a",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"3077c3477fb68cc7a0f73c40799b7ba414ff26ff2c6092a504211f239eee4c9d"
],
[
"e",
"4c92ade38ddb599cfe73f42c30acd22b0f13f66bf683e9ab9b0ae8dd28becb49",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"65912a7ad17fd5cf3bacce9759f3bea3a44f9a3397340e559cf067945dc638bf"
],
[
"p",
"83d302b5c25ed43e5b75532fa6a6bda21c4b63e9f516826798f516fc4159b9c7"
]
],
"content": "Well, now you're talking about two different things; scientific discovery, and research-driven consensus. You can't conflate the two and pretend they're one and the same. Scientific discovery can come from many places, research being just one of them. Scientific discovery is irrelevant in this situation as there are no discoveries at the heart of the matter. This is a judicial opinion relating to consensus of established scientific knowledge. It's not a ruling that some new discovery makes the existing body of knowledge irrelevant. That notion itself is absurd. Regardless of this judge's opinion, the established scientific consensus will remain the same until some new research that contradicts the consensus goes through the scientific process, including peer review, and is so compelling as to make what was previously believed moot. There are no shortcuts to this process, nor should there be. The scientific process is purposely rigorous, and that's why it's such an amazing tool for discerning truth. It's certainly not going to be undone by some layperson in a robe rendering a legal opinion. That's just not how it works. ",
"sig": "c448b856d96750a314e3851abe37d062558f72c3bf27d7772c34a493fc7947b143a9ffce60c8c9485393f9d332295a7b898bc31f4de1a2a6d4372f1cd86ec314"
}
